This invention relates generally to the delivery of therapeutic agents via artificial biomedical implants, and more particularly to an agent-delivery device adaptable to an internal biomedical implant.
There are many applications in which it is desirable to locally deliver a therapeutic agent adjacent to a biomedical implant such as a fracture plate, spinal rod or total joint prosthesis. For example, for growth factor delivery to secure accelerated bony fusion in a spinal fusion or fracture repair application, local delivery is necessary to concentrate the inductive agent at the site at which bone healing is desired. Another area in which local delivery would be advantageous involves the local delivery of an agent capable of reducing local pain and inflammation (e.g., an analgesic agent, therapeutic protein or antibody) alone or in concert with a surgical procedure such as a bony fusion. Finally, one area of great need involves local delivery of antibiotics for the treatment of implant associated infections.
Infections associated with surgical implants are generally difficult to manage because they require long periods of antibiotic therapy and repeated surgical procedures. Infections related to orthopedic devices and ventricular shunts often result in serious disabilities. Infected joint prosthesis occur in more than ten thousand clinical cases per year in the United States, while infected fracture fixation devices (e.g., fracture plates and intremedullary rods) are even more widespread, as there were nearly 100,000 infected fracture fixation implants in the United States in 2004 (Darouche, 2004). On average, about 5% of initially inserted internal fixation devices become infected. The infection rate for open fractures (those that involve compromise of the skin barrier) may exceed 30%. The cost to treat these infected implant sites is a significant cost to the healthcare system. For example, costs to treat spinal implant infection range from $40,000 to $400,000, depending on the severity and duration of the infection.
One significant challenge associated with the treatment of implant associated infections is the formation of a bacterial biofilm on the surface of the prosthesis. Bacteria biofilms involve the clustering of the microorganisms together in a highly hydrated extracellular matrix called a glycocalyx. Implants may be colonized acutely by perioperative airborne, skin- or surgeon-related bacteria seeded during surgery, or may adhere to the prosthesis via blood borne (hematogenous) pathogens at a later time. After attachment on the biomaterial surface, bacteria multiply and physiologically transform into a “biofilm” community. These biofilms are difficult to treat with systemic antibiotics for multiple reasons, including the quiescent nature of the bacteria in the biofilm community, poor vascularity of the biofilm, and its resistance to drug diffusion into the protein matrix (glycocalyx) formed by bacteria on the implant surface. Depletion of metabolic substances or waste product accumulation in biofilms also causes the microbes to enter into a slow growing or stationary phase, rendering them up to 1,000 times more resistant to most antimicrobial agents.
The nature of the surgical intervention to treat the infected device depends on the type of device, the presence or absence of bony union (for fracture fixation and spinal instrumentation devices) and the patient's underlying condition. For stable implants, debridement of the implant site, copious irrigation, high dose parenteral antibiotics and retention of the device with long-term (sometimes lifetime) oral antibiotic treatment is common. Surgical removal of the implant may be necessary to remove the source of the infection in the absence of a means of locally delivering high doses of therapeutic antibiotics, even in cases where the implant is still required for structural or functional performance. An additional follow-up procedure may be required to place a second implant once the infection is adequately treated.
Implant associated infections are often acquired in the hospital or surgical center. Federal (Medicare and Medicaid) and private insurers expend upwards of $1 billion treating hospital acquired, implant associated infections. This provides strong incentive and motivation for developing systems and methods for treating active infections and for preventing infection around medical devices.
A variety of methods are currently utilized to treat implant associated infection. These include the use of systemic prophylactic (pre- and post-operative) and post-infection antibiotics, delivery of antibiotic loaded PMMA bone cement, delivery of antibiotic loaded biomaterials, and active and passive surface coatings of the medical device prior to insertion. The most common method is to use systemic antibiotic therapy. However, these have been found to be expensive, prone to complications and very often not successful. One concern in delivering an antibiotic via the systemic route (oral, parenteral) involves the generally poor vascularity of the implant site, such as a bone fracture in the case of internal fixation implants. In order to deliver local therapeutic doses, it may be necessary to deliver high, and potentially toxic, levels of the antibiotic. The literature strongly supports the effectiveness of local treatment compared to systemic routes. This has been a major driving force toward developing methods to locally deliver a therapeutic agent. The local concentrations of antibiotic that can be achieved with local application cannot be achieved with systemic delivery, due to the toxic side effects that most antibiotics produce at such high systemic concentrations.
Another common method for treating implant associated infection, especially for joint replacement arthroplasty and large bony defects, has been the use of antibiotic impregnated bone cement (e.g., polymethylmethacrylate, PMMA). The antibiotic loaded cement may be mixed at the time of surgery, or a specially sized PMMA spacer may be used following removal of the prosthetic hip or knee replacement. In bone defects, for example with osteomyelitis, bone cement beads may be packed into the defect to increase surface-to-volume ratio for antibiotic delivery. For joint replacements, a two-stage replacement approach may be used, where the infected implant is removed and replaced by a biomaterial spacer until the infection is treated and a second prosthesis can be placed.
There are multiple concerns associated with the use of antibiotic-containing bone cement. Antibiotics may be slowly released over the first 4 weeks, after which a sub-therapeutic dose of the antibiotic may be locally present. There are concerns that the lower dose of antibiotic in later time points, below the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of resident bacteria, may lead to the formation of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria around the implant. Also, the bone cement is a two part system that may have residual toxic components, which also undergoes a highly exothermic reaction, both aspects capable of killing local bone cells needed for healing.
Other biomaterials have also been proposed for local delivery of antibiotics. These carriers include collagen scaffolds, bone substitutes (calcium based biomaterials) and allograft bone with incorporated antibiotic agents. For fracture treatment, placing these biomaterials in addition to the extensive hardware used to treat the fracture, and the need to maintain the material adjacent the implant site, have limited their utility in trauma and spine applications.
Implant coatings have been proposed as a means of reducing bacterial biofilm formation. Providing metal implants commonly used for internal fixation or spine surgery with a coating that contains and releases an antibacterial or antiseptic substance after surgery has been an appealing solution to the problem of implant associated infection. Antiseptic coatings such as silver ions and chlorhexidine/chloroxylenol may be immobilized on the implant surface. The main rationale for the use of an antiseptic instead of an antibiotic is the lower potential for developing resistant bacterial strains. Other efforts have involved the coating of the implant with a resorbable polymer coating or film loaded with an antibiotic or antiseptic agent. Animal studies have demonstrated the potential utility of the use of a resorbable biomaterial for local delivery. For example, Kalicke and coauthors reported in 2006 that the use of an antibacterial (Rifampicin and fusidic acid) and biodegradable (poly-1-lactide) coating on titanium fracture fixation plates resulted in a significant reduction in infection rate in an animal model (“Effect of infection resistance of a local antiseptic and antibiotic coating on osteosynthesis implants: an in vitro and in vivo study” Journal of Orthopaedic ResearchAugust 2006, pp. 1622-1640). Pilot clinical studies have been performed using polymer/antibiotic coated intramedullary nails for enhanced fracture repair (Schmidmaier, et al., 2006).
Others have proposed to modify the implant by adding channels or openings in the implant that can be filled with a drug-eluting biomaterial. The concept of machining channels into the implant for receipt of a drug eluting biomaterial or gel has been proposed. Concerns with these methods involve the need to prospectively modify the implants, the potential effect of these material modifications on the strength of the device and the potential for pockets or channels to harbor microbes.
For the foregoing reasons, there is a need for local and sustained delivery of therapeutic agents within the body of a patient. The new device should be easily adaptable to medical implants, such as bone fixation implants, spinal fixation implants or reconstructive prostheses.